Prediction of width and depth of laser‐engraved microgrooves: Machine learning versus response surface modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents a comparative evaluation of two predictive approaches for determining microgroove dimensions in laser machining. The first approach employs response surface methodology (RSM) regression models to predict microgroove width and depth using three input parameters: laser power (10–20 W), scanning rate (50–150 mm/s), and focus distance (6–8 mm). The second approach utilizes data‐driven machine learning (ML) and deep neural network (DNN) models, incorporating five input parameters: laser power, scanning rate, focus distance, laser pass number (1–3), and measurement location (edge and middle). A total of 350 microgrooves were analyzed, and results indicate that the DNN model achieved the highest prediction accuracy, with an R 2 value exceeding 0.94 for depth prediction and a mean absolute error of 10.96 μm on the training data. These findings demonstrate the potential of data‐driven models in improving the precision of laser machining predictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".